But, JSoujourner, I think we've had this discussion before. McCain's point was very simple with the 100 years thing. People ask "how long should we be in Iraq" His precise point, when you hear the comment in context, is that this does not matter, as the examples of Germany and South Korea show. What does matter is the level of violence. If that is fixed the number of years would not be an issue. Of course, as Morden pointed out, you can argue that the violence will not decrease. What McCain effectively did was getting away from that point.
If that's the case -- and I am sure you're right -- then McCain was fudging or parsing. There was no straight talk express on this issue. He cannot have it both ways. Either Iraq can be made safe with the troops we have, or it cannot be made safe. Since he refuses to call for more boots on the ground, we must assume he believes it can be made safe with the troops we have -- a large number of whom are on their third and fourth tour. Just what is his plan to accomplish that? Certainly not the surge, which has been a miserable failure. Casualties, both US and Iraqi have exceeded the numbers from last year for every month in 2007. Sectarian violence is out of hand and more complex than ever. Rockets and mortar rounds are falling again in the green zone, which is supposed to be one of the safest parts of the country.
So Mac better put forth a plan for "making Iraq safe" like yesterday. Or he'd better stop claiming to be any different than any other politician. Straight talk, my ass. Yeah, I know his supporters say he understands the difference between Korea, Germany and Iraq. Fine, I'll accept that. Then that can only lead me to believe that...
A. He thinks Iraq is now safe for US troops
B. He thinks Iraq can quickly be made safe for US troops with the forces we have.
C. He has a secret plan to put in a lot more troops once he's elected, thereby making Iraq safe
for US troops.
D. He really plans to pull out, but lacks the balls to say so for fear of losing the cash contributions
of defense contractors and pro-war supporters.
If A is true, he's a moron. I don't believe that for a minute. (Bush, yes. McCain, no.)
If B is true, he should explain what he has in mind. And he'd better be bloody convincing, because his surge idea was a limp, flaccid little exercise in futility.
If C is true, he's a typical politician -- no better than Senator Sniper Fire or Senator I Must Have Missed That Sermon. (Because if you're running for President and planning a massive troop surge, you'd better man-up and say so now.)
If D is true, it's certainly the best we can hope for. But it still makes him a liar. Or, a "misspeaker".
Now perhaps my naivete is showing, I and need to wise up. They are all politicians. Fine. But don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining. Or, to put it nicely, don't tell me it's straight talk when it's obviously more of the same b-s we've been putting up with since forever.
Poll
