But it’s impossible for the situation to be like Korea. That has a defined geographical division and does not have the complex tribal and sectarian feuds that Iraq has. Staying in Iraq = sacrificing troops. There’s no way around it. Until he says that he will leave if the violence continues, then the only way to take his position is that he doesn’t care how long we stay there or how many people die.
Well, if he’s only OK with having troops there if Americans weren’t being killed, then wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that he’d want the troops pulled out at some point before the 100 years comes along if they were still being killed?
It’s in your own cite.
The problem is, he hasn’t said that. He has not stipulated to any conditions under which he would ever pull out troops in our (literal) lifetimes.
“Because they hate your mom, child. She is engaging in poltical hyperbole, which is anathema to the paragons of civic purity and truth.”
Well, US soldiers are being killed now. How long (if not 100 years) is McCain proposing to continue this situation before pulling them out? One year? Five years? Ten years?
And I’ll make one prediction: leading up to November 4th this year, there will be increasing attacks both on the US military in Iraq, and on Iraqis who are supporting their presence. That will have something to do with domestic politics in the US, including what Senator McCain says over the next seven months.
Again, make that point as you just did, and nobody will fault you - it is just a debate going forward.
But notice that you are debating McCain’s whole statement now. That is something Democrats do not want to do - they want to harp on the “hundred years” comment to whip up the crowds (like you guys) and provide no context at all.
Include all of what McCain said and he becomes much harder to refute - and you can’t do it in a soundbite or some red meat in a fundraising appeal.
We’d not be so heavily involved in South Korea without North Korea. So who gets to play North Korea to our Baghdad? There must be one, else McCain’s analogy fails and we’re left with troops sitting around in the desert for 100 years to no purpose.
Why would any sane person want to create a hostile border and drive Iran to new heights of extremism? It seems to me we ought to be able to do better than that in a post-cold-war era.
What McCain said is extremely EASY to refute, as demonstarted in this thread. His weaselly qualification does not save him from his implications. It’s an empty, CYA addendum which does not hold up to logic.
Right. My cite. Perhaps you missed where Fact Check called the DNC line of attack a rank falsehood - and Speiers’ attack was along these exact same lines. Why wouldn’t they be characterized the same way?
If it is easy to do, then please explain to me why Democrats in their attacks are not using the whole quote?
Fact Check took issue with use of the word “war.” Speier didn’t use that word. I actually don’t think it’s the right word either. It’s an occupation, not a war. There’s no way to “win” an occupation.
Iraq is not Japan. McCain is an idiot if he thinks there will ever be any year in which we have U.S. troops in Iraq (beyond embassy guards) and none are violently killed.
They’re congressmen. Didn’t they read the job application?
Because the statement, “The president wants to stay the course and a man who wants to replace him suggests we could be in Iraq for 100 years. But Madam Speaker, history will not judge us kindly if we sacrifice four generations of Americans because of the folly of one,” contains no lies. Not a single one. And you know it.
They only use the part that’s relevant. 
Seriously, they’re politicians. That’s what they ALL do. Watch what they do to Obama’s quotes sometime. Fox News repeatedly played Obama’s remark about his grandmother being a “typical white person…” while always clipping it right there and avoiding providing his context. His stance on Iraq has been grossly caricaturized as well. His desire to start pulling out troops amounts to an intention to “surrender to the terrorists” (Romney), to “cut and run” (Bush and others) and “to make a case for defeat” (Karl Rove).
I think what Seier said about McCain is a lot more accurate than what typically gets said about Obama by the Pubs. They wouldn’t have walked out if a brand new Pubbie Rep had accused Obama of wanting to “surrender” or “cut and run.”
Then you are a liar yourself, or delusional.
Please identify exactly which sentence is a lie.
By my count, there are two true statements (about what Bush and McCain have said), and a prediction about the future (which will only become true or false at some time in the future). There is nothing in there which could possibly be called a lie or a falsehood.
Republicans sat still when Bush lied. They applauded him even.
Given that she never mentions McCain by name, I don’t see how you could be particularly offended on his behalf.
In any case, she certainly never says he wants to sacrifice four generations. She says that it would be stupid if we did, which is… um… true. If you take issue with that statement, it’s because you’re looking for a reason to be offended.
You have to make some (plausible, but certainly not evident) leaps to get from her statement to your characterization of her statement; in essence, you’re doing to her exactly what you think she’s doing to McCain.