What is Digg?Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate
Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.340 Comments
- Groovemaster, on 02/26/2008, -12/+196It's funny.
The garbage man is paid to take away your garbage. He does so, and he keeps his job.
The guy at McDonalds is paid to make you a burger. He does so, and he keeps his job.
The dude in the dry cleaner's store is hired to dry clean your clothes. He does so, and he keeps his job.
Politicians are paid to serve the best interests of the people who pay them. They consistently fail to do so, telling lie after lie after lie, and yet they keep their jobs.
What makes these ***** so special exactly? - noupsell, on 02/26/2008, -22/+172The war in McCain's head will never be over.
- snea, on 02/26/2008, -25/+108He looks pretty cool in those sunglasses
- felman87, on 02/26/2008, -8/+78because YOU keep voting in the same dumbasses! That's why!
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -16/+80I wonder how long before this will be "reported by Diggers as possibly inaccurate"?
- AmirAhmad86, on 02/26/2008, -15/+71Initially he made comments which contradict the current one. The latest I believe is designed to lure in centrists and independents by making it sound like he'll pull the troops out and let the Iraqis handle their issues. It's vague talk I say.
- felman87, on 02/26/2008, -10/+46Does this mean McCain wants to surrender to terrorists?
- oilcan, on 02/26/2008, -0/+33It's all about who they are working for.
HINT: It ain't you! - smacksaw, on 02/26/2008, -4/+37So the war is over, why are we building military bases? Shouldn't we be building police stations?
- durru7, on 02/26/2008, -4/+36I'm scared by "soon" he means "draft"
- Sogui, on 02/26/2008, -18/+48First off, I'm glad they provided this clip because this is what he meant by "100 years", he hopes to hand over the combat stuff to the Iraqis while having a base out in the desert in case of a future conflict in the region. Not ideal I know, but it's not a "100 years war" like some people interpret it.
Furthermore, those silly quotes that they provide are all taken out of context. The first and second were taken before and during the invasion of Iraq. The answers were in response to how long he though the invasion of Iraq would take. Keep in mind that this was when we were uncertain if Iraq still would be able to put up much of an organized resistance.
On those first two counts he was absolutely right, the invasion was relatively quick and painless, but if you look at his records he was quick to point out that the security was unsustainable unless we had more troops... he has consistently been against Bush and Rumsfeld's plan for occupation.
On the last count, though it's hard to read out of context, is in reference to the surge movement that he pushed through congress. He is simply implying that this was the "deciding point" in the war. Either we would start withdrawing troops and watch the situation deteriorate, or we could provide a surge and try to regain control. What he was saying was "Whether we win or lose will be decided in the next few months". If you actually watched the Meet the Press where he said that you'd see a clear distinction in what he was saying. - manicallday, on 02/26/2008, -5/+32This is kinda of funny. He's using the Vietnam-era logic to define war. You see, he doesn't relate being in a war zone as being in a war. It's more like being in a police action. There's apparently a difference in his head. However, I don't see the insurgents really giving a ***** about what our intended role is there. They are still going to try to kill our troops. The best way to handle this is to do a reverse D'Day. We will let the Iraqi government that we're going to pull out on a day this year, bu not tell them what day. Then one day this year just leave. .
- pepemt, on 02/26/2008, -2/+29he's not four popped collars cool
- ethanpack, on 02/26/2008, -3/+27"The war will be over soon."
Anakin Skywalker said that to Padme and we all know how *that* turned out... - insllvn, on 02/26/2008, -6/+27He is speaking in geological time.
- the6thReplicant, on 02/26/2008, -7/+26Can you show me when Thinkprogress.org takes things out of context. I am (seriously) interested. I just watch their links to youtube.
- DeFex, on 02/26/2008, -0/+18when there is a pre-selected choice between ***** and *****, you still have to chose ***** right?
- arcangelgabriel, on 02/26/2008, -6/+22Speaking as a vet, yes, the war is never over. We just come home.
Semper Fi - kent1146, on 02/26/2008, -4/+20Or more importantly, people DON'T vote the dumbasses out by not voting at all.
This isn't aimed at anyone specific, but it's my personal belief that if you do not vote, then you lose all rights to bitch about your elected officials. - iankino, on 02/26/2008, -5/+20Well, I guess in grand scheme of time, 100 years is rather soon in comparison.
- Terr01, on 02/26/2008, -3/+17Eh, I've always held that the "100 year" thing was meant to refer to a fundamentally different kind of occupation and situation than we have. Really, he's either making a stupid committment (100yrs as we are now) or a bogus comparison (Iraq situation != Korea situation).
The point of this is that *right now* McCain is saying the war is going on and the "insurgency" part hasn't started. If we are not ALREADY in the "insurgency" phase, (And Mission NOT accomplished, Major combat operations NOT ended), then when the heck is the magical politically-convenient switchover phase he's talking about? - LanceBoyle, on 02/26/2008, -12/+26The war will be over right after you elect me. Trust me.
George W. McCain - jsbee, on 02/26/2008, -6/+20He directly addresses that comment in this quote. He thinks that there will be a U.S. presence in Iraq for long time (Just like there has been a U.S. presence in Japan for the past half-century). He also made further comments that basically said something like "The American people don't care if we're in Iraq for 100/1000/10,000 years, its American casualties they care about". While this may not be an encouraging thing to consider, considering how the popularity of the war fluctuates with the rate of U.S. deaths, it is hard to challenge.
- Biks, on 02/26/2008, -7/+21Damn it, and if we hadn't left Vietnam so soon, we would've won that one too. We could've turned that place into something nice if we had the chance. [pause] Oh yea, it is a nice place now.
- freshgrease, on 02/26/2008, -5/+18ITS A TRAP!
- lamprey187, on 02/26/2008, -3/+15......in a parallel universe that is opposite of this one. In this universe lobbyists own McCain.
- DanOnTheMoon, on 02/26/2008, -4/+16Thank you, Sir for your service. Good thing you're home, I think the Domestic enemies of the Constitution pose a bigger threat than the Foreign ones, at the moment.
- Spanktacular, on 02/26/2008, -1/+13You're absolutely correct. His use of the passive voice is evidence enough of this. "The war will be over" is not the same as saying that "as president, I will withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq and leave the country to Iraqi control."
- NightVortez, on 02/26/2008, -4/+16Oh come on, the war will be over whether McCain wants it to be or not, money doesn't grow on printers.
- DanOnTheMoon, on 02/26/2008, -4/+15Don't blame me. I voted for Ron Paul!
- FMDC, on 02/26/2008, -0/+11What makes them special is their connections. Don't be so naive. You know this country isn't run on common sense.
- mrcoderga, on 02/26/2008, -4/+15SOS (Same Old.) Time to call them out on their crap. We heard this same line every 6 months since 2002. Secretary Rumsfeld in 2002: "Estimate? Five days, five weeks, I don't think five months."
Bush and McCain and all Republicans -- except Paul -- are just running the clock down, and expect you to fall for the same line. Again. And again. And again.
Question: How do you win occupation in Iraq? This is a trick question friends!
Correct Answer: By occupying! Withrawal is "losing" by these guys. Simple as that. Think no further.
Go look at the bases being built up in the middle east now. Google for Alan Arkin at the Washington Post. Read his blog. I wrote a diary on this very subject last week at dailykos.com. There is no withdrawal from the Middle East, EVER, AND THIS IS BY DESIGN. - nicholai, on 02/26/2008, -1/+11Tell that to the federal reserve.
- the6thReplicant, on 02/26/2008, -8/+18So we have the largest embassy in the world in Iraq. We have our bases in SA. All on "holy" land. Which kinda pisses off enough Muslims that they're quite happy to strap bombs to their chests and kill innocent people.
Of course, anyone who knows the real reason why a large number of Muslims are pissed off with the US are still happy to support such measures and so keep people being pissed off at us. Kind of like making sure the War on Terror continues forever and ever. - Terr01, on 02/26/2008, -5/+15For your interpretation, we'd have to accept that "war" vs. "insurgency" are entirely arbitrary labels applied by politicians with no basis in reality, like "Phase A" and "Phase B". Myself, I believe that they *are* tied to reality and that McCain's diagnosis of the *present* as a "war" (and "insurgency" only being an as-yet-nonexistent future) is factually wrong and deceitful.
In other words, your interpretation implies as long as we're still there, it's a "war", and once we leave, it THEN becomes an "insurgency", even if the actual situation on the ground hasn't changed at all.
And this guy is supposed to have the "straight talk express"? Give me a frickin' break. - Lastgreatwar, on 02/26/2008, -0/+10 He has absolutely no value for human life. He directly says in another article that was posted on Digg a few days ago, that "It's not American presence that bothers the American people, it's American causalities"....I don't know about any of you guys, but I really don't like being lumped in with that statement. I have a huge problem with the death in this war. Period. Iraqi, American, it makes absolutely no difference. I feel particularly awful for the women and children who had absolutely nothing to do with it and yet, are left to suffer.
There is a HUGE difference between being viewed as a powerful nation, and being viewed as a heartless one. - khail250, on 02/26/2008, -11/+21if soon means 100 years then yes
- lamprey187, on 02/26/2008, -4/+13I'm glad that I am not the only person to see the similarities between Iraq and Vietnam.
- Terr01, on 02/26/2008, -4/+13Only due to an apparent similarity to Jack O'Neill.
- baddriver, on 02/26/2008, -5/+14we will be greeted as liberators
- Curlz31, on 02/26/2008, -20/+29Didn't he just say Americans may be in Iraq for 100 years? And didn't he just say there will be more wars?
It's past time you were in a nursing home Senator McCain. Don't worry, I'm sure you'll have fun jerking off to war movies. - DRINKxREDxBULL, on 02/26/2008, -0/+9Not only are we at war with them, but we have installed puppet government in both places. It has always been about the bukkake porn, anime, and sushi. NO MOAR WAR FOR UNDERCOOKED FISH!!
- lamprey187, on 02/26/2008, -1/+10Your comment is fair. The animosity comes from the way McCain slowly embraced the Bush administration as he drifted towards the Republican base to get the nomination. To many people this is viewed as being a sellout. His campaign speeches sounded very much like the usual Republican rhetoric.
- DanOnTheMoon, on 02/26/2008, -0/+8He's so old, he can already see the light at the end of the tunnel.
- inactive, on 02/26/2008, -3/+11Let me guess this straight. The ire for McCain derives from his war-like mindstate, and the oft-misquoted "100 years in Iraq," (in which he described miliatary presence, not engagement). And that I understand. I'm not down with either of those things myself.
But then, when he says the end of the war so many of us dislike is near, well, why the animosity? Isn't it a good thing that someone with the aforementioned mindstate says that?
Short of him dropping out and endorsing and giving all his delegates to Ron Paul, what from this man would please you? I'm not being stubborn or inciteful; I'm genuinely curious. - bicyclethief, on 02/26/2008, -2/+10Interesting idea if it weren't for the pesky logistics. It's not 5 guys and a duffel bag, it's thousands of troops and all their equipment.
- Cyrus042, on 02/26/2008, -2/+10Any concerns that "muslims" have with the United States reaches far beyond recent political history and stretches to, arguably, ancient history. Anti-American ideology doesn't stem from us necessary being on or near their holy land but rather a belief that Western influence in general was the cause for the collapse of Islamic culture and society. (We can recall that at one time the Middle East was the crown jewel of civilization, mathematics, etc)
In this sense it isn't necessarily the "United States" or "Britain" or any other specific country but rather a broad generalization that Western influence is corrupting. Currently, the United States is perhaps the most visible and influential Western country and is consequently the target of these political concerns.
I would argue that and I think it's sensible to say that by and large, the average person in the Middle East is moderate. (Just look at the Iranians). Although it's safe to say that they're upset with current relations with the US and are genuinely hoping for reconciliation. (Again, most specifically Iran). So I would offer to say that what you're seeing is a few political (and theological) are using both religion as a means, and an underlying distrust of Western Influence (Historically) as a justification with the ultimate goal being absolute political and social control. (Think totalitarian goals / utopian).
Although I would like to highlight that this group of individuals both attempting to take control and willing to sacrifice themselves is a relative minority (although large in impact) and likely explains their methods. (Generally terrorism). In conclusion, this a complex issue that can't be summed up in modern generalizations. I know that even I barely scratched the surface of the historical causes. - serif69, on 02/26/2008, -5/+13Anyone who thinks there won't be any more wars and/or we won't have an installation somewhere we just fought a war is naïve at best. Most people in the world are not equality-preaching hippies, and they will start wars with each other. We have embassies and military bases all over the world, in ally and enemy countries. McCain points out the obvious and gets lambasted for it. Now he responds with even more obvious points in response to the lambasting and is ridiculed for being old. Are you running out of arguments or are you too lazy to actually research the man's political leanings and intelligently argue those?
- V3n0M, on 02/26/2008, -4/+12And how which other countries would you be happy to let build bases in the United States?
- rlh1, on 02/26/2008, -0/+8I do believe that we were invited in to Vietnam, or at least allowed in. The South didn't want to be overrun by the Communists of the North.
We did attack Iraq. -
Show 51 - 100 of 338 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is