Only if you consider us to be occupying Japan, South Korea, or Germany. He’s turned some pretty radical corners WRT withdrawl lately, although always hedging his bets by saying he’s going to base it on conditions on the ground, as if Obama is going to give orders that Iraq be entirely evacuated with any consultation with the military or any flexibility in response to events as they unfold. But McCain does want permanent military bases in Iraq, I believe, and given the political situation both over there and over here, I don’t think that’s going to go over very well.
If there’s resistance it’s an occupation, and resistance is not going to stop so long as U.S. troops are there.
Frankly, I don’t think it’s going to stop after we’re gone either, although I hope to heaven I’m wrong. But I think McCain is envisioning a South Korea type stationing of troops there, rather than an occupation, if you will.
Then he envisions the impossible.
Quite likely, but I think that’s what he’s been thinking.
I’m not sure it qualifies as ‘thinking’. Not without the words ‘unrealistic’ and ‘hopelessly’ figuring somewhere in the same sentence.
OK, I think that’s what he’s been imagining.
ETA: And, yes, I think it’s hopelessly unrealistic. And he may even realize that by now too - he’s not entirely an idiot.
Echoing Oy!, had McCain made the Al’Qaeda/Iran error once and said “Oops!” or else said “Oops!” when he was called on it, I’d lump it with silly things like “Iraq/Pakistan border” or “Czechoslovakia”. But he said it several times and then tried to argue with the press about it when they said “WTF?” and would have continued asserting he was right had Lieberman not finally stopped him. In other words, by all indications, McCain was convinced that he was correct and that Iran was training Al’Qaeda.
Same with the Anbar/Surge thing. Had McCain said “Yeah, I misspoke” the next day then dandy. When you’re “on” 24/7, you’ll make errors in there. But his tortured definition of what the “Surge” really was was insane. Either he actually believes himself when he says the surge started six months before Bush declared it and the Anbar Awakening was a result of said surge (because, let’s be honest, when people talk about “The Surge”, they mean Bush’s troop increase) or else he’s so unwilling to give Obama an inch that he’ll try to double-talk his way through some bizarre maze of defintions to prevent saying that Obama has a point. Which is the answer? I don’t know. But neither one bodes really well to me after dealing with eight years of Bush’s “We’re never wrong!” philosophy of foreign affairs.
So the moderators have been chosen now for the three presidential and one vice-presidential debates:
Notice who’s shut out: Fox News and ABC. Gee, ya thing the atrocious performances by Stephanopolous and Gibson might have been held against them?
Excellent choices - all above reproach, to my knowledge.
Sam, the direction US foreign policy has taken isn’t currently popular with the American public. Senator McCain’s experience is only a strength if he has made a long history of making correct foreign policy decisions while his opponent was uninvolved or made poor choices. This is simply not the case. I don’t believe he can ‘pull rank’, whatever the hell that means.