From the Charlie Rose show

ROSE: Do you think that this — Korea, South Korea is an analogy of where Iraq might be, not in terms of their economic success but in terms of an American presence over the next, say, 20, 25 years, that we will have a significant amount of troops there?
MCCAIN: I don’t think so.
ROSE: Even if there are no casualties?
MCCAIN: No. But I can see an American presence for a while. But eventually I think because of the nature of the society in Iraq and the religious aspects of it that America eventually withdraws.

But what he apparently "meant" was exactly the opposite. That's how back peddling and flip flopping usually works.

The United States military could stay in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years" and that "would be fine with me," John McCain told two hundred or so people at a town hall meeting in Derry, New Hampshire, on Thursday evening. Toward the end of this session, which was being held shortly before the Iowa caucuses were to start, McCain was confronted by Dave Tiffany, who calls himself a "full-time antiwar activist." In a heated exchange, Tiffany told McCain that he had looked at McCain's campaign website and had found no indication of how long McCain was willing to keep U.S. troops in Iraq. Arguing that George W. Bush's escalation of troops has led to a decline in U.S. casualties, McCain noted that the United States still maintains troops in South Korea and Japan. He said he had no objection to U.S. soldiers staying in Iraq for decades, "as long as Americans are not being injured, harmed or killed."


After the event ended, I asked McCain about his "hundred years" comment, and he reaffirmed the remark, excitedly declaring that U.S. troops could be in Iraq for "a thousand years" or "a million years," as far as he was concerned. The key matter, he explained, was whether they were being killed or not: "It's not American presence; it's American casualties." U.S. troops, he continued, are stationed in South Korea, Japan, Europe, Bosnia, and elsewhere as part of a "generally accepted policy of America's multilateralism." There's nothing wrong with Iraq being part of that policy, providing the government in Baghdad does not object.



In other words, McCain does not equate victory in Iraq--which he passionately urges at campaign events--with the removal of U.S. troops from that nation

I guess whether American soldiers will be stationed in Iraq forever or not depends on what sort of mood John McCain is in. Sometimes the Koreas are a bad model, and we don't want to be in Iraq very long whether there's violence over there or not. And other times, the Koreas are a perfect example of a violence free eternal deployment.

Once upon a time, "straight talk" was honest and consistent. Then John McCain came along and "adopted" the term.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Once upon a time, "straight talk" was honest and consistent. Then John McCain came along and "adopted" the term.

Situation 1: Arguing with Anti-War protester about the rightness or wrongness of being in a foreign country for an extended period of time.

Situation 2: Presenting personal opinion of what was likely to happen in Iraq.

Why the spin?

The real entertainment is watching Obama back away from his direct talks with Iran speak. Every week he adds additional provisos and disclaimers. All his defenders rush to point out Ahmadinijad is not the leader of Iran, like that has something to do with the price of tea in China.

Update on the Resko property purchase. Apparently Obama and the criminal Resko bought adjacent properties on the same day from the same previous owner. Of interest is that Obama paid $300k under market while Resko paid full boat. After the purchase, Obama buys 1/6 of Resko's land at a pro-rated price. Doesn't take a master sleuth to figure out Resko essentially paid Obama $300k in that transaction for.... services rendered?

Originally Posted by cbwm

All his defenders rush to point out Ahmadinijad is not the leader of Iran, like that has something to do with the price of tea in China.

So your saying he is the head of the government and military and Iran? Or is it your smoking your pipe filled with substances you want to make legal?

Who negotiates without preconditions with Iran? Hint: Nouri Maliki the head of Iraq.

In what country was the Sunni head of government removed so that they could be replaced by a Shia? And which other country is Shia?

Oh, the folly of neoconservatives and their total ignorance of any facts.

Originally Posted by joder

So your saying he is the head of the government and military and Iran? Or is it your smoking your pipe filled with substances you want to make legal?

My statement was clear. Whether he is the absolute leader of Iran or not is irrelevant. Obama said he would negotiate without precondition with Iran... period. Debating who leads Iran is not relevant to the issue at hand.

I say Obama is right to talk to another nation to get their views. Obama said plainly he would not make concessions to them but just talk. Your spin is only spin and you might want to get your leader who you worship to get his little boy in Iraq to stop negotiating with Iran since he is Shia and is friendly to the Shia of Iran.

You have to understand the anger and resentment, Flipotron.

We're running somebody who's young, intelligent, articulate, who fills stadiums. They're running John McCain.

I understand John. Bush said he would exhaust all diplomatic means with Iran. But when a Democratic presidential candidate saying they would talk to Iran in an election year Bush boy compares him to the British before WW II.

I guess it's okay to talk to Iran if you trade hostages for weapons in behalf of your facist friends in Central America. It's okay if you do it through Russia or the EU. Or I guess Bush's buddy who is the head of Iraq. It's only wrong if your a Democratic presidential candidate.

Of course the neoconservatives know their don't-talk-until-they-become-Americans policy will fail. They want it too. They need another excuse to use the military. I think Americans have learned this time around and can see that Bush is just replaying his past warmongering strategy.

I haven't figured out who's dummer: Bush or McCain. Didn't they make a movie about them called Dumb and Dumber?

Originally Posted by joder

I guess it's okay to talk to Iran if you trade hostages for weapons in behalf of your facist friends in Central America. It's okay if you do it through Russia or the EU. Or I guess Bush's buddy who is the head of Iraq. It's only wrong if your a Democratic presidential candidate.

That's because democrats are expected to hold a higher standard. If a democrat lied 1 % as much as George W Bush, they'd impeach him.

Originally Posted by joder

I guess it's okay to talk to Iran if you trade hostages for weapons in behalf of your facist friends in Central America. It's okay if you do it through Russia or the EU. Or I guess Bush's buddy who is the head of Iraq. It's only wrong if your a Democratic presidential candidate.

Exactly! Now you are catching on! If the Republicans do it, whatever it is, its all good. If the Democrats do it, it is most definitely fool hardy. Of course we have to be sure we are talking about something comparable, which is very difficult when we post spin as fact.

Originally Posted by joder

I haven't figured out who's dummer: Bush or McCain. Didn't they make a movie about them called Dumb and Dumber?

Been there, done that(in 2004), got the shirt to prove it.....

Originally Posted by cbwm

Exactly! Now you are catching on! If the Republicans do it, whatever it is, its all good. If the Democrats do it, it is most definitely fool hardy. Of course we have to be sure we are talking about something comparable, which is very difficult when we post spin as fact.

According to cbwm a fact is whatever Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh say the day before he posts. You might want to write into Webster's and have them add that.

Haha. I'm actually not really a big fan of Hannity, and I never watch Limbaugh, but I've seen lots of stuff here posted almost word for word out of Olberman's site. If Hannity and Limbaugh use my material, you'd think they'd have the decency to site me as a source! Here is some more political humor which I think illustrates well how campaigns work(Dem and Rep) during election year.

Originally Posted by cbwm

Haha. I'm actually not really a big fan of Hannity, and I never watch Limbaugh, but I've seen lots of stuff here posted almost word for word out of Olberman's site. If Hannity and Limbaugh use my material, you'd think they'd have the decency to site me as a source! Here is some more political humor which I think illustrates well how campaigns work(Dem and Rep) during election year.

Hilarious, some how I haven't seen either of those and I was very into the 04 campaign. The John kerry photoshop was perfect!

Originally Posted by joder

According to cbwm a fact is whatever Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh say the day before he posts. You might want to write into Webster's and have them add that.

Cbwm is a by the Talking Points kind of guy, a few miles to the right of Barry Goldwater. And that's fine - the problem is

1. Saying things to annoy lefties has become more important than talking about reality.
2. Cbwm's world view, as he's explained it, is that a person should do nothing to improve anything. He'd rather do a lot of work to make things worse, than no work to make things slightly better. Anyone who can't agree that we should ultimately be trying to improve our quality of life, shouldn't be listened to.
3. Consistency, personal responsibility, and standards are things cbwm has shown great hostility to. Some how it's offensive for any democrat to speak the truth, and proper, even admirable, for any republican to lie.
   1. In example, cbwm is a tireless advocate for drunken driving, unless Ted Kennedy and the 1960s are involved.
4. Party line answers to questions that haven't even been asked yet.

I could go on and on, but the point is you might as well take advice from (or argue with) a ouija board. Fortunately, there's an ignore list feature - the forum won't even show you what a person writes after they pass the troll threshold.

Originally Posted by Learning Newbie

Anyone who can't agree that we should ultimately be trying to improve our quality of life, shouldn't be listened to.
...
Fortunately, there's an ignore list feature - the forum won't even show you what a person writes after they pass the troll threshold.

Knowing you can't read this has a level of humor and irony that only a sick individual such as I can fully appreciate. I actually really really like the ability you describe as it puts censorship in the hands of the individual (I wish most of our current censorship fell into this category). If turning up the squelch on my speech lowers your blood pressure, I can hardly see why you didn't do it the first day.

For the crowd, since you can't read this.... I think everyone wants to improve the quality of their life. I don't think many people agree on how to go about it. Its one of the many reasons we have both rich people... and poor.

[quote=Learning Newbie;737774]Cbwm is a by the Talking Points kind of guy/quote]

cb says he doesn't like Sean Hannity. Well, whenver there is a big news story, I do view Sean and Glenn Beck even though I know what they are going to say. Funny thing is, cbwm writes the same words they say on their shows. But he might not get it from them. All rebooblicans say the same words on every issue. And when one twists or makes up "facts", they all mimic.

Nice interview with Condelezza Rice where she states:

Well, and we're ready. I've said I will meet my counterpart anyplace, anytime, anywhere to talk about anything -- not just about nuclear issues, about anything.

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../fzgps.01.html

True. Condi is one smart woman. I've added the next paragraph so the peeps can put the words you quoted in context.

Now, I've said very often, I don't know why they don't want to talk to us. It would not, it seems to me, be that difficult to suspend for some period of time. Let's do it the other way around. Rather than saying we'll negotiate for a while, and then see if you suspend. Let's say you'll suspend for a while, and let's negotiate. Because can you imagine the crisis, if, in fact we are negotiating and they don't suspend, and then you have to break off the talks?

Ahh preconditions. Such a pain in the *ss. After all, they obviously had no effect when the Bush Administration refused to talk to N. Korea bi-laterally, and instead insisted on multi-party talks including China. Oh wait....


Edit: BTW, I can completely understand Iran's desire to stall talks until Obama comes to power. Stubborn Dubya draws the line in the sand saying a nuclear Iran is unacceptable (Europe agrees btw), but Obama claims he'll negotiate and give them time while they continue to enrich. Its all rather academic anyway, since Israel has pretty much stated they are going to start bombing Iran before Obama has a chance to give away the farm.

I think Condi's interview was great. It's just not what you pundits are making the issue out to be. Go look at the news. The United States of America IS negotiating with Iran NOW. And I agree with doing so. I agree with Bush's current policy of negotiating with Iran which he is doing.

It's you pundits just looking for political crap to bring up when you don't have anything real that are the problem.

I'm getting confused. So you are saying Obama's foreign policies are no different than Bush's?

What I'm saying is Bush is negotiating with Iran. Capesh? Or do you think that is all of foreign policy. I don't hear Obama making up WMD in order to attack anyone though.

What I'm really saying is YOU, Sean Hannity, Rush, and FOX are just propagandists and don't know what you are talking about. You can't even get current events straight.

I love it when conservatives walk all over themselves with hypocrisy. This time your idol Newt Gingrich
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIP.../fzgps.01.html

: A year later, he was being pilloried by the same conservatives. His sin? Reagan went to Moscow for a summit meeting with Gorbachev to discuss arms reductions and conflict resolution.

This full-page ad, taken out in January 1988, from the hugely influential group, the Conservative Caucus, warned that, quote, appeasement is as unwise in 1988 as in 1938, unquote -- comparing Reagan's meetings to those with Hitler before World War II.

When Reagan first proposed meeting with Gorbachev, Newt Gingrich was among those who denounced him, saying it was the most dangerous summit for the West since Adolf Hitler met with Chamberlain.