McCain in NH: Would Be “Fine” To Keep Troops in Iraq for “A Hundred Years”

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. After McCain told Tiffany that he could see troops remaining in Iraq for a hundred years, a reporter sitting next to me quipped, “There’s the general election campaign ad.” He meant the Democratic ad: John McCain thinks it would be okay if U.S. troops stayed in Iraq for another hundred years.....

More McCain here:  http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2008/01/6 735_mccain_in_nh_wo.html

PS - I’m sure that strategy won’t piss off the people living in Iraq. Are you kidding me?  If some country was planning on occupying HERE for 100 years what would you do???

PT

The same Judeo-Christian values practiced by the Pope on Friday the 13th when the Templars were captured, tortured and burned.  A repeat of the values demonstrated when the Pope ordered all in the Cathar communities killed and god could sort them out.  How about those values shown during the Inquisition?

The Azetics and Maya sacrificed folks of all types genders and etc..

Cyrena

The Native Americans practiced religion which was comparable to that of all other stone age tribes around the world.  This would have the possibility of including human sacrifice and ritual cannibalism.

I,Q

The Puritans were only one of the sects who came to “the new world”.  They immediately set up a punitive theocracy as did the other sects.  Maryland was a Catholic Colony and practiced the most religious tolerance.  Our 17th century flirtation with theocracy was worn out and rejected before our constitution was written in the 18th century.

Of all the Republicans, who would you rather have, if it had to be one of them?

McCain is at least an honest man. None of the others are.

There is nothing wrong with believing in a god, even the one of the New or Old Testament. And one’s personal beliefs about sex etc. should be repsected and tolerated.

It is when a person feels that he/she must impose his/her beliefs upon all others that we need to be concerned.

The problem with the religious right is that they have been led to believe that their god will punish us all if people who do not believe as they do are living among them.

Their god is a cruel god, one that sends hurricanes and causes strokes and heartattacks, and deals out death on a regular basis.

The reilgious right are deluded, yes, but they are, more so, driven by fear; fear preached into them from their church leaders, and, as we have now seen Huckabee and Romney, and Thompson and Ron Paul (yes, Ron Paul too, despite his ill-informed followers) their political leaders too.

The religious right are uneducated—why would they read about science and history, biology, geology, astronomy, physics, when all they need to know is taught in their bible?

Unfortunately for us, they are also highly organized, especially the craziest among them.

But of all the republicans, let it be McCain if we must have one of them.

Faith, Hope and Charity have now been replaced with One World Religion (their goal), Loathing(for women, the destitute, the poor) and Greed (let’s ignore those in need).

Any why is being a liberal a bad thing when being a conservative is really the the more negative of the two.

The following definition was provided by Webster’s Dictionary:

Liberal; one who is generous, one who favors greater freedom in political or religious matters, one free from prejudice or narrow thinking.
Ant. stingy, mean, bigoted or conservative.

For those who boast that they are Christian conservatives I offer my sympathy.

Is it me or is there something crazy about fighting “Islamic” extremists who preach hate and want to “kill us all” and then the current ruling party in this country talks about the sanctity of life while supporting a war that has killed 100,000 to 1,000,000 Iraqi civilians? Then how they feel about the poor, no money for you, and even how they treat wounded VETs. The Christian Right gives Christianity a bad name and there is no place in American politics for pandering to these hate mongers. We are a secular country not a theocracy.

McCain’s issue isn’t whether or not he is patriotic or Christian enough, its whether or not he can stick to his principles, and the fact that he is not leading the charge against water boarding and impeachment for those crimes says it all to me.

I agree with Ginny. Just what values do these people think they are talking about? Seems to me and everyone of Native American heritage there was already a religious system established here before the invasion of the “Judeo-Christian Euro Trash who came to this country and stole, lied and massacred the people here for the land. Every underhanded thing that the human mind can dream up was done, and not in a good way. Most of the 10 commandments were broken by these very same J-C’s who claim the founding this nation. If this is their value system it needs to be destroyed.

These Christian people stole the children of the indigenous peoples and prostituted the girls and used the boys for slave labor in the name of Christianity all the while claiming they were teaching them about GOD. Women were mutilated by these Christian soldiers, who referred the Indians hostiles, having their uterus’s cut out and worn ad souvenirs. The women, children and elders were often targets of mass slaughter(most often noted by Custer) while the men were hunting for food. Food sources purposely destroyed and the forbiding of hunting for food, claiming the new invaders would feed the Indians, who they actually starved to death. Housing was destroyed often keeping people from fleeing their deaths. Underhanded methods used to steal the land from the original peoples. Forced assimilation, using Indians to hunt their own people promising them their freedoms, which was reneged on as soon as the goal of the invader was achieved.

These are just a few of the “CHRISTIAN VALUES” that these ignorant people claim that this country was founded on. I see nothing to be proud about, let alone to be bragging about it. It is obvious that these people running for president of this country never studied the “TRUE” history of America in all of it’s glorious and unglorious past. Besides, it was the Puritans who invaded this country before the Christians, who were the second group of religious nutjobs who invaded America.

Anyone running for office who professes these “Christian values” needs to be drummed out of the race as they already have proven they are unfit to serve as president of America. We already have had enough bloodshed in this country, if the religious zealots get into office will they force their “Religion” onto all the people and if we do not accept, will they then kill us as is done in other “Religious” nations?

“So let’s see, those arrogant judges think they know so much that the rest of us. Humm, I wonder if it might be because they study the stuff for years and years, reading opinions, writing opinions, burying themselves in case law…

If they weren’t so arrogant and full of themselves, they’d just whip out the Bible, and then they would be as stupid as everybody else, and the righties would be happy.”

One of the first lectures I received at university included the admonition that EDUCATED PEOPLE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO SPEAK OUT AND LEAD/TAKE CHARGE WHENEVER THEY ENCOUNTER NONSENSE ISSUES IN THEIR COMMUNITIES.

This does NOT mean that “educated” people are always correct and/or without a goodly amount of “nonsense” in their baggage as well. It DOES mean that “educated” people have a responsibility to use REASON and LOGIC and FACTUAL INFORMATION upon which to base OPINIONS, not PURE FICTION (eg the Bible) and/or “God spoke to me"-type supporting evidence.

Some judges are NUTS and clearly shouldn’t be on the bench. Same applies to some barbers, bankers, bootleggers and bandoliers.

But MOST judges have had access to far more factual information on some issues than does the “madding crowds.” The Bible does NOT contain “factual information” by any stretch of the imagination (which it requires in copious amounts).

“The people” can be 100% WRONG… and often are.

Just as soon as anyone drags out the Bible or God to support claims/arguments, I leave the room because I know they haven’t a clue what they’re talking about.

I think the NAFTA Super Highway got its start from lil Rickys’ plan to build a massive toll road from OK to Mexico through the center of the State. It would include right of ways for trains, utilities, and pipelines.
The cost of such a project as envisioned by him would be borne by the Private Sector. But getting the railroads, pipeline companies and utility companies to relocate their existing networks hasn’t been addressed.
As for religion playing any part in a Presidential or any other election, what happened to separation of Church and State? If it is illegal to display the Ten Commandments at a Courthouse, how can candidates espouse their so called religious qualifications as a reason to vote for them?