1. Senator McCain suggests its casualties that matters, not when the troops come home from Iraq. Do you agree?

2. As long as there are no or low casualties in Iraq, does it matter how long the U.S. remains?

3. Are the Democrats twisting McCain's words out of context or interpreting his words correctly? Please explain your answer.

1. Senator McCain suggests its casualties that matters, not when the troops come home from Iraq. Do you agree?

2. As long as there are no or low casualties in Iraq, does it matter how long the U.S. remains?

3. Are the Democrats twisting McCain's words out of context or interpreting his words correctly? Please explain your answer.

The Democrats are twisting McCain's words out of context. He means what the questions suggest, that casualties are whats important, not time.

Well, no... it's an important question and nobody is twisting his words out of context. In November 2007, McCain said that due to the cultural and religious makeup of Iraq, we shouldn't keep troops there like we have in Korea... that we would have to withdraw. A couple of months later he is talking about keeping troops there much like we keep troops in Korea - that he'd be fine with keeping them there for 100 years.

If the cultural and religious makeup of Iraq means we shouldn't stay in Iraq - as McCain claimed in November, then how long we stay in Iraq is important regardless of the question of casualties.

The question was not about what he said in November 2007. It was about his comments on the TODAY show. McCain qualified his statement in the context that he would not mind keeping troops there if there were no casualties ala Korea.

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?

<snip>

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.

The question was not about what he said in November 2007. It was about his comments on the TODAY show. McCain qualified his statement in the context that he would not mind keeping troops there if there were no casualties ala Korea.

But again, the Democrats are missing the fundamental point. Unless you believe that we should withdraw troops from Korea, Japan, Germany, etc... criticizing McCain for his comment would be pure hypocrisy.

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.
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/11/28/mccain-korea-withdrawal/

Right and his statements in November directly contradict his statements yesterday... in November he said we shouldn't stay there even if there were no casualties.

The fundamental point is that we do not need permanent bases in Iraq and if the cultural and religious nature of Iraq is prohibitive to having the same kind of success in maintaining bases there - like we do in these other countries, the question of casualties becomes moot... because there will always be casualties.

The other major difference between these other countries and Iraq is the circumstances that led to bases being built. Were any of them built as a result of an essentially unilateral strike on a sovereign nation that had not attacked us?

If I can just point out - in BoF's post here links the exchange you are talking about. And from what I gather, McCain said that we should withdraw eventually. Such a statement is purposefully vague for obvious political reasons. But eventually is the key word. 100 years is eventually. Eventually we will be forced to withdraw because we just can't afford it.

You see this is my point. You do not disagree with McCain on principle. You disagree with the application of that principle to Iraq. You are free to make such a distinction, I however find both positions to be equally wrong.

Let me point out that the question he was asked involved the number of years... He was specifically asked if this would be like Korea and he said, "No." He was asked about 20, 25 years and his response was, "No." Why? So, it seems to me, that unless one strains and stretchs, he means that we will be there for some time, but not as long as we've been in Korea... Why? Because of the nature of the society and religious aspects of Iraq. So, it is you who are taking his statements out of context... out of the context of the question he was asked. My interpretation is based on context, the context in which he put forth this statement... the question he was asked... He was asked if this would be like Korea... he said, "I don't think so." "Even if there are no casualties?" "No." So, in November, the question of the number of casualties was not important... it wouldn't be like Korea.

What principle?

The fundamental point is that we do not need permanent bases in Iraq and if the cultural and religious nature of Iraq is prohibitive to having the same kind of success in maintaining bases there - like we do in these other countries, the question of casualties becomes moot... because there will always be casualties.

The other major difference between these other countries and Iraq is the circumstances that led to bases being built. Were any of them built as a result of an essentially unilateral strike on a sovereign nation that had not attacked us?

In an interview with Matt Lauer on the TODAY Show, Republican presidential candidate, Senator John McCain

Lauer: If it's working, Senator, do you now have a better estimate of when American forces can come home from Iraq?

McCain: No, but that's not too important. What's important is the casualties in Iraq. Americans are in South Korea. Americans are in Japan. American troops are in Germany. That's all fine. link

Democrats pounced on McCain's remarks.

"Senator McCain's comment is evidence that he is totally out of touch with the needs of our troops and the national security needs of our nation. I think many of our brave soldiers and their families would disagree that it's 'not too important' when they come home," said Senator Joe Biden

McCain's campaign responded:

Sen. McCain has consistently opposed a timeline for withdrawing our troops from Iraq. And our friends on the opposite side of the aisle have a long history of attempting to twist Sen. McCain's words on Iraq. The fact that Sen. McCain opposes a timeline for withdrawal and is principally concerned about the safety of American troops and the security of Iraq is pretty much "dog bites man."


Questions for debate:

1. Senator McCain suggests its casualties that matters, not when the troops come home from Iraq. Do you agree?

2. As long as there are no or low casualties in Iraq, does it matter how long the U.S. remains?

3. Are the Democrats twisting McCain's words out of context or interpreting his words correctly? Please explain your answer.

What difference does it make if he said 20 years, 25 years, or 100 years? If he is President he would only be Commander-in-chief for at most 8 years. In 20 years he will most likely be long gone. All that matters is his position for the next 8 years.

The principle of keeping troops in other countries. Unless I am grossly misinterpreting your post, you are saying that iraq is a unique case in regards to permanently building military bases. If you criticize building bases in Iraq but support bases in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc... then you do not disagree with the principle of having military bases, you are just making a distinction when it comes to Iraq.

And what a President does in his eight years has no impact on what can be done beyond that eight? That's a bit short-sighted.

I made no statement of principle and no statement of support either way in regards to bases in Korea, Japan, Germany, etc... Bases exist in these countries and the US has some success in maintaining them... that is a statement of fact, not principle.

The Democrats are twisting McCain's words out of context. He means what the questions suggest, that casualties are whats important, not time. HOWEVER, The Democrats are taking the wrong approach and not addressing the fundamental issue of our foreign policy. Should we be the world's policeman? Should we maintain troops in Japan, Korea, Germany, and the 130 other countries around the world? This debate about McCain's words is pointless unless we address our entire troop presence abroad. If any Democrat believes that we should maintain troop levels in all those countries - then they are actually in agreement with McCain on principle. The only difference is that they have an arbitrary bias against troops in Iraq. Many Democrats are just as interventionist prone as the neoconservative Republicans.

To answer all three questions, I went to the Today Show's website and watched the entire video of the interview, not just the sound bites provided by the opening post's link. The next statement he gives after NT's link cuts off is (and I am paraphrasing here) ....we are going to be able to withdraw; General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we can withdraw. Entire Interview

The message I took from the entire interview was that the surge is working as evidenced by the lower casualties, and withdrawing now would be viewed as a defeat. Leaving that country without security would be the defeat. Given the fact that the casualties are lower, and progress is being made, now isn't the time to retreat, but one day that option will be available.

But one can only get that if one watches the entire interview. I can see where the Democrats can get confused on the message in the interview from the sound bites that were provided.

But far more are not and they don't go tearing around the world looking for trouble, picking fights and destabilizing countries. THIS Administration believes in all of this and more.

What is "arbitrary" about being biased about putting American troops in a place where they are hard targets? McCain's argument is ridiculous. Nobody is shooting at U.S. troops in Japan, Korea, or Germany. It's a false comparison. The surge has reduced violence in Baghdad, more it's a band-aid for a problem requiring brain surgery.

McCain's flippant remarks overshadowed the other major news about Iraq that came out this week:

BAGHDAD — Iraqi lawmakers say the U.S. is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews that the Iraqi government rejected this proposal, along with another U.S. demand that would effectively hand over the power to determine whether a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the U.S. and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al-Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far," he said.

Other conditions sought by the U.S. include control over Iraqi airspace up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation upon two years of notice from either side, lawmakers said. link

Why does a liberating force need control over Iraqi airspace? Why does a liberating force need immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops AND private military contractors?

Why does a liberating force demand the authority to determine what is considered to be a hostile act of aggression against Iraq?

Why does a liberating force want to build 58 bases on the soil of a sovereign nation?

The answer to all of these questions is a liberating force does not need to to do any of these things. Only a occupying force does.

And occupying Iraq for 100 years is what McCain is all about.

He is one very scary old man.

Questions for debate:

1. Senator McCain suggests its casualties that matters, not when the troops come home from Iraq. Do you agree?

2. As long as there are no or low casualties in Iraq, does it matter how long the U.S. remains?

3. Are the Democrats twisting McCain's words out of context or interpreting his words correctly? Please explain your answer.

I'll have to go back and check, but were you equally concerned that you were not hearing Reverend Wright's "Goddamn America" sermon in its entirety, but only a brief excerpt instead?

But far more are not and they don't go tearing around the world looking for trouble, picking fights and destabilizing countries. THIS Administration believes in all of this and more.

What is "arbitrary" about being biased about putting American troops in a place where they are hard targets? McCain's argument is ridiculous. Nobody is shooting at U.S. troops in Japan, Korea, or Germany. It's a false comparison. The surge has reduced violence in Baghdad, more it's a band-aid for a problem requiring brain surgery.

McCain's flippant remarks overshadowed the other major news about Iraq that came out this week:

BAGHDAD — Iraqi lawmakers say the U.S. is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews that the Iraqi government rejected this proposal, along with another U.S. demand that would effectively hand over the power to determine whether a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the U.S. and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al-Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far," he said.

Other conditions sought by the U.S. include control over Iraqi airspace up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation upon two years of notice from either side, lawmakers said. link

Why does a liberating force need control over Iraqi airspace? Why does a liberating force need immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops AND private military contractors?

Why does a liberating force demand the authority to determine what is considered to be a hostile act of aggression against Iraq?

Why does a liberating force want to build 58 bases on the soil of a sovereign nation?

The answer to all of these questions is a liberating force does not need to to do any of these things. Only a occupying force does.

And occupying Iraq for 100 years is what McCain is all about.

He is one very scary old man.

Well, thanks a whole helluva lot for the link scubatim, but is it really necessary to wade through the whole seven minutes of the interview to get to McCain's Iraq remarks at the 6:09 mark? While it was fascinating to hear the so-called "maverick" be an apologist for Big Oil, it really wasn't germane to this topic.

You seem to be suggesting with all this bold print "entire"interview jive that McCain's words are being taken out of context. Nothing could be further from the truth. If you don't understand the difference between deliberate misstatements and editing, I don't know what to tell you.

I'll have to go back and check, but were you equally concerned that you were not hearing Reverend Wright's "Goddamn America" sermon in its entirety, but only a brief excerpt instead?

You are preaching to the choir nighttimer.

But a couple of points. First, the comparison of Iraq to Korea, Japan and Germany is apt in the context of McCain's statement. He said that how long we stay in Iraq is irrelevant, what does matter is the amount of casualties. Hence, if US soldiers were not being shot at like in Korea, then he would stay forever. Following my logic train, if you support the stationing of troops in 130 other countries when they are not being shot at, you are essentially agreeing with McCain's position on Iraq because they are the same. McCain didn't say we should stay forever if casualties continue to mount (in that interview, although its possible that he believes we should stay regardless of casualties). And again I iterate that its the next 4 years that I am worried about because that is all that McCain has an effect on.

They will have no influence on the policy once their terms are up.

It is possible that inferred to much on your regard, but my point remains. This debate is silly and has no real substantive value. It does nothing to address the overarching US foreign policy.

NT's link cuts off is (and I am paraphrasing here) ....we are going to be able to withdraw; General Petraeus is going to tell us in July when he thinks we can withdraw. EntireInterview

If McCain thinks we should stay in Iraq for 9 years, 25 years, 100 years, or until the end of time it really makes little difference. He can only be President for a maximum of two terms and it appears that during those two terms he wants to stay in Iraq. Obama says he wants to withdraw troops, but at the moment I question his sincerity on that policy. What if Obama is for withdrawing troops but in 10 years? After his possible two terms are up? They will have no influence on the policy once their terms are up.

Eventually we will be forced to withdraw because we just can't afford it.

Keith, this is a morale crusher. You know, if you can imagine, say a sergeant, who‘s on his third tour and he‘s in the 14th month of that tour and he hears the potential president saying something like this, it kills morale.

<snip>

And when they hear something like this, you know, it really kills them on the inside because, you know, their families want them home. They want to come home, you know, or focus on the real global war on terror elsewhere. But this is really a killer when you hear something like this.

<snip>

Absolutely, Keith. You know, we‘ve come to not expect a whole lot from George W. Bush. But when you have a veteran like John McCain who has gone through so much in Vietnam, you really expect a lot more out of him because the way you see it as a soldier or marine or airman or whatever, is that John McCain should know better.
You know, he‘s been in our shoes. He‘s had it worst than most of us. You know, he should know better. And, you know, for those of us who‘ve been there and who‘ve lived through this, we just would expect a lot more and it really saddens us, you know, to see this happen, because there are thousands and thousands of veterans who‘d just disagree with him on this.

<snip>

You know, we‘ve been over there, too. We‘ve been in war too. And we know what it‘s like. And he doesn‘t get a free pass, especially from us because we hold him to a higher standard.
And you know, all I can say is that we respect John McCain‘s service. All we ask in return is that he respects ours. And from many of the people I talked to, who are on active duty, or who have just come off active duty but who have served over there, we don‘t feel like we‘re getting that a lot of the time.

It is insane for the U.S. to maintain standing forces in 130 countries. As a Ron Paul supporter, I confess to being surprised that you seem so sanguine with McCain's expansionist empire building.

"There's going to be other wars. ... I'm sorry to tell you, there's going to be other wars. We will never surrender but there will be other wars." ~ John McCain

I take John McCain at his word when he says there is going to be other wars.

He knows this because he's going to start them.

And he won't be the least bit sorry about it.

We will have peace in our lifetime during President McCain's administration even if we have to kill every Arab and Muslim to get it.

Your addition concerns me as much as the one NT provided for the basis of this thread.

Should we elect a commander-in-chief, who blindly turns such decisions over to a military commander? I think not.

I have reviewed the interview and I missed the part where he is going to let a military commander ultimately make the decision. In fact, I think he said something about General Petreaus will tell us when he [General Petreaus] thinks we should be able to. Sounds to me like Senator McCain is looking for the advice of the Commanding General, someone that actually knows what is going on day-to-day, not a poll, or a bunch of politicians.

So to answer your question, no, we shouldn't elect a commander-in-chief who blindly turns such decidsion over to a military commander; but we should elect one that listens to the advice of the Commanding General to make informed decisions.

Casualties are a primary concern. So is an open-ended commitment and occupation. How long we stay in Iraq is not irrelevant. Especially for the troops that will have to maintain our footprint there.

Why does America need 58 bases in Iraq if McCain says all we're waiting for is the word from General Petraeus to start coming home? Something doesn't pass the smell test here and it's the load of manure being shoveled by McCain.

It is insane for the U.S. to maintain standing forces in 130 countries. As a Ron Paul supporter, I confess to being surprised that you seem so sanguine with McCain's expansionist empire building.

Perhaps you believe the damage done by the imperialistic hubris of a President McCain would be limited to his four or eight years in power, but there's a lot of mischief one man can get up to when he's got control of the greatest military juggernaut the world has ever seen.

Decisions made during a president's term can have a significan impact on future foreign policy. If a treaty is signed during one presidency, a future president is bound by that agreement. They are attempting to put the military bases into a US-Iraqi agreement.

And, with his statements, McCain is putting himself, seemingly, on the wrong side of Iraq's wishes.

And where did I agree with this? Look everyone, I do not know how I became the McCain supporter of this thread, but the strawmans have to stop. I do not agree with his policies - I am pointing out what he actually said and the insignificance of it.

That's the problem. Civilians control the military as the constitution was written.

I think Bush used General David Petraeus as cover and McCain is doing the same thing.. The president should, as commander-in-chief, make the decision on his own, with or without advice If McCain can't do this, then he doesn't deseve being elected.

Harry Truman is admired by some Republicans. Bush attempted to drape himself in Truman's mantle some years ago. Can yolu Imagine Truman saying he'd let General MacArthur tell him what to do? According to historian David MCCullouch, if Truman had listened to McArthur, we would have nuked China.

Meanwhile, McCain is on the offensive. "You got some "splain'" to do John.

That's where you are wrong, leder. This gaffe is significant enough to dominate at lest two news cycles and put McCain on the defensive. Uh, this is a campaign year. What would not be significant last year or a year from now, is important in real time.

And where did I agree with this? Look everyone, I do not know how I became the McCain supporter of this thread, but the strawmans have to stop. I do not agree with his policies - I am pointing out what he actually said and the insignificance of it.

This is nothing but spin.

My comments above are to illustrate that his positions have broader implications that could affect foreign policy long after he were out of office... something you seem to imply would not be the case. Sorry, I don't do strawman.

Scubatim has an annoying habit of jerking posts off the screen and responding to them, while the post he quotes is being edited. He doesn't even bother to check and see if he has the final version. Slow down!

The highlighted word should have been "defensive." It was edited to say that eight minutes before scubatim posted. To see the final version, click the little red arrow behind my user name.

That's one interpretation, but you can also interpret McCain's whole interview as spin.

If it is spin, Democrats have learned well from Karl Rove and the Swifties.The problem seems to be that Republicans dish it out better than they take it, eh Aquilla.

Lie:

On May 30th, Rush Limbaugh said he had heard a rumor that a tape exists of Michelle Obama using the word “Whitey” from the pulpit of Trinity United Church of Christ.

Truth:

No such tape exists. Michelle Obama has not spoken from the pulpit at Trinity and has not used that word.

If you read the link carefully, it debunks rumors about Barack Obama. Rush Limbaugh is quoted and he's pretty much pre-debunked.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/notape
From scubatim's miss used link

That's why I say slow down.

Rush did indeed hear a rumor about this tape.

A "rumor." I rest my case.

Now back to what we indeed have McCain telling Matt Lauer on video.

Yes, a rumor, and he said it was a rumor. Where's the lie in that? Or, do you just want to complain about bringing up that little "context thing" like you did when I responded to your Lauer claim?

Yes, a rumor, and he said it was a rumor. Where's the lie in that?

If you have the entire video of the sermons Reverend Wright gave to show context, I would be happy to view those videos with an open mind. I doubt you do given the fact that you have not provided them in the past, so neither you or I know what was said in the sermons entirety. Interesting that you will blindly give a pass to Reverend Wright when you can't prove that his statements were taken out of context, and that I have never seen anyone claim those statements were taken out of context; yet you take a sound bite of McCain's and will run with it, spinning with the best of them.

Not sure what you mean by this, but I don't see anyone over-reacting, unlike another candidate for President of the United States of America.

Perhaps you are the one that should gain a little reading comprehension, BoF, before you start lecturing others. What the Obama claims is a lie isn't one at all. Rush did indeed hear a rumor about this tape. He didn't say it was true, just that he had heard the rumor. Are you, and the Obama spin machine suggesting that Limbaugh never heard that rumor?

If you read the link carefully, it debunks rumors about Barack Obama. Rush Limbaugh is quoted and he's pretty much pre-debunked.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/invite/notape
A Link from Within scubatim's miss used link

That's why I say slow down.

1. Senator McCain suggests its casualties that matters, not when the troops come home from Iraq. Do you agree?

Not at all. If the troops came home there would be no casualties. Our troops can't become casualties in Iraq if they aren't there. McCain compares our being in Iraq to Japan, Korea, and Germany; but they are 2 different animals. Japan and Germany surrendered. In Iraq our continued occupation is a recruiting point for terrorists and insurgents. To compare Germany and Japan to Iraq shows a deep ignorance about the whole issue.

2. As long as there are no or low casualties in Iraq, does it matter how long the U.S. remains?

No. If we had no casualties or low casualties then it wouldn't matter how long we stayed. It would be a practical and intelligent move to have a foothold in the middle east. But our mere presence is what is fueling the violence. To borrow a phrase from Bush, The terrorists are fighting us there so they don't have to fight us here (where ever here maybe). As long as we are bogged down in Iraq the terrorists are free to gain foot holes in Afghanistan, Pakistan, or where ever they like.

3. Are the Democrats twisting McCain's words out of context or interpreting his words correctly? Please explain your answer.

Yes, though I'd say it is more the media and not the democrats. McCain's words are being twisted to say he doesn't care. I have no doubt that he does; but he has the wrong solution. What he said was damning enough there is no need to twist them and make them something they aren't. Take what he really said and meant and its still a bad thing.

I did not take a sound bite of McCain's and run with it. That's your spin. I am under no obligation to live up to your mistaken assessment.

I will take some time to look for a video link to Reverend Wright's sermons. Would you also be open to considering a transcript?

It is not an overreaction in any way to debunk vicious rumors before they have a chance to fester and spread like a fungus. Too many of these stupid and basel