ABOUT FIRST READ

First Read is an analysis of the day's political news, from the NBC News political unit. First Read is updated throughout the day, so check back often.

Chuck Todd, NBC Political Director

Mark Murray, NBC Deputy Political Director

Domenico Montanaro, NBC Political Researcher



100 years?

Posted: Monday, March 31, 2008 5:14 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC/NJ's Aswini Anburajan
Does McCain really want troops in iraq for one hundred years? According to Obama the answer is yes.

In a back and forth at today's press conference, Obama insisted he was not taking out of context McCain's comments about keeping troops in Iraq for 100 years. Asked if his attack was disingenous, Obama had the following to say:

"I don’t think it’s unfair at all," Obama said. "John McCain, I mean, we can run the YouTube spot, has said that we will stay there as long as it takes. And if it takes another 100 years, he’s up for that commitment and that implies that there is some criteria by which we would understand how long it takes.

"John McCain has not been clear about what exactly would lead him to decide it's time to pull out. And so, you know, the problem that we’ve had both with John McCain and George Bush is that there’s no clear definition of success. There never was, and that’s why this has been such a profound strategic error. And you know, I think it is entirely fair to suggest that unless he’s got some criteria where by, at some point, we would be able to pull out our troops. For him to argue that, which he has repeatedly, that any suggestion that we withdraw troops is surrender. That implies that we will be there as long as he thinks it’s necessary for us to be there."

Obama was told that McCain had said the presence would be similar to what the United States had done with Germany and Japan in World War II. Obama seemed to agree with that notion but pointed to the costs of the war as a reason to avoid that type of engagement.

"Well we’ve been in South Korea for for 50 years," Obama said, "and he’s used that as an example as George Bush has. And that is decades, and we’re spending $10 billion a month in Iraq right now, which means that John McCain is willing to sign up for the prospect of spending as much as $150 billion or more each year for who knows how long. That is something that the US can't afford, and I think that is going to be a debate we are going to have in the general election should I be the nominee."

The RNC has pushed back hard on the issue. Today, it writes this:
“Yes, Barack Obama is misusing John McCain’s words. Today, Obama as much as acknowledged he has misrepresented McCain’s positions on Iraq.  Even though it’s well documented that there is no truth to the statement that Senator McCain wants to fight the Iraq war for another 100 years, Obama has continued to intentionally misrepresent McCain’s position. Following Senator Obama’s admission today that John McCain’s comments are in the spirit of our military presence in South Korea, we expect he will stop using this shameless political distortion to try and score points with the base of his party.
 
“During today’s press conference, Obama again failed to condemn Chairman Dean’s outrageous comments slandering Senator McCain as a ‘blatant opportunist’ for discussing his record of military service with the American people. Failing to heed his own call to reject negative politics is no way to establish credibility with voters looking for sincere leadership.”

For context, the "100 years" comment came up when McCain responded to questioner in a town hall, "Make it a 100," about the U.S.'s potential committment in Iraq. He added, "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so. … That would be fine with me...."

But what's left out often is what he said next...  "as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. … It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

Here's McCain's response on this to Tim Russert on Meet the Press.

MAIN PAGE

Email this EMAIL THIS

Comments

3 polls from blue states (MI, NJ and WA) were released today and McCain leads 5 out of 6 match-ups in them -- a clear indication of how formidable he might be in the fall. Full roundup: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/03/monday-polls-mccain-edges-democrats-in.html
Wait -- It's ok for us to see a 10 second clip of McCain on YouTube, but it's not ok to see 30 second clip of Rev. Wright on YouTube?

Obama, make up your mind.  
"Truth Hurts,"
Regarding your response to my comments about Hillary not really being vetted, I appreciate the response.  However, I'll say it again.  Just because you, Hillary, Bill, and Howard Wolfson say she's been fully vetted doesn't mean that it's true.  We've unfortunately found that out the past 2 months.  Her claims about Bosnia that she's been making for 3 months are not misspeaking.  They're lies.  She brought her ONLY child into sniper fire?  Huh?  Her role in SCHIP?  Greatly exaggerated.  Her role in Northern Ireland?  Greatly exaggerated.  

But, because you believe strongly in your position, precisely what are the 3 things that Hillary Clinton has accomplished in domestic policy and foreign policy that give her this vaunted experience?  And please don't respond by saying "well, what has Obama done."  HIllary Clinton is the one running on this deep background of experience.  I've moved to support Obama in part because she has been so arrogant in her resume buffing.  Senator Clinton always talks about being judged on her resume ("we're hiring the President of the United States here...").  If somebody walked into my office to interview and I later found out that at least one of the 3 biggest things they had claimed was a lie, I MOST CERTAINLY would not hire them.   I dare say you would do likewise.

Teh long and the short of it is McCain has no exit strategy. HE thinks the war is winnable. He is not open to what he considers defeat. Also he needs to know that the insurgents do not want us there at all. Not even for peace keeping. And as long as we are there, there will be bloodshed.
To Domenico:

Obama's top national security advisor General McPeak said we could be in Iraq for a century.  He compared it to South Korea.  

Why doesn't the media question Obama about this apparent hypocracy.  McPeak gave the interview to the Oregonian and Obama still made him his co-chairman of his campaign.

Charles Krautheimer was the only one to bring this hypocracy up.

McCain has said he will turn over areas to the Iraqis and bring our troops home.  McCain said it will be up to the Iraqis to deal with the insurgency and be on the front lines.  McCain was talking about providing air cover.  McCain was also talking about training iraqi forces.


Hey RNC troops are being killed right now, doesn't that mean we should leave?
Jose, ny, ny.

You missed this one buddy!

Rev. Wright is not running for President, McCain is.  Also, Clinton has used the same arguement about McCain and his "100 years" statement quite a few times.
http://twocanpete.blogspot.com/
The only thing that matters is that they are there and they need to come home now. We are pouring $720 million a day down that sandy rat hole and sea of American blood. Enough is Enough, not one more day.
I'm so over Iraq being compared to Korea and Japan in terms of occupation......I'd surely love it to be so.........we sure in the Hell do not have daily death, destruction, maiming and misery in Tokyo and Seoul like we do in Baghdad.
"as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. … It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

"as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed. … It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

All of those posters who keep going with the "100 years, McCain said 100 years," FirstRead has finally DONE YOUR HOMEWORK FOR YOU.

Now find something else, for Pete's sake. And if you start with the "Iran next" crap, then have your constitutional expert Obama explain to you that a President can't go to war without congressional approval.

The point is, if a conventional war breaks out somewhere in the world, if Iraq becomes second page news (aside from the economy, which is Congress's responsibility) we need a military-wise leader. And there is only one in this race.
McCain stated 100 years. McCain also stated bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. If you don't want to be quoted or labeled as a war monger then don't talk like one. Otherwise someone just might call you on it.

The only issue McCain is running on is national security. But I have yet to hear him say anything as to how he intends to secure our borders or to provide more security for the US beyond chasing insurgents around in Iraq. If the voters don't think McCain is seeking a permanent US presence in Iraq then they are fooling themselves. We see who controls the fighting in Iraq. When Al Sadr speaks the insurgents fight and kill US soldiers. When Al Sadr says enough for now the insurgents return to their homes to catch a little TV. Back and forth, back and forth. There is no end. Take him out and all hell breaks loose. Leave him alone and he calls out his thugs now and then controling the violence level in Iraq. There is no end. Bring our troops home.    
"make it a hundred"
-john mccain

keep spinning the story, johnny mac!

truth is you and your buddy, bush, have no idea what victory means.  and if you don't want to pull out until there is victory, that means under your criteria we could be there indefinitely, which is certainly longer than 100 years.

start moving out asap and the iraqis will know we're serious, thus getting there act together on solving the political issues necessary for peace.  we keep hanging around and handing these bozos more blank checks written in the blood of brave americans and we WILL continue to be there forever.  it's not rocket science, people, and the dems are definitely right on this issue.  how can you be a republican and be FOR wasting the country's treasury and precious military resources on paying for another country's civil war???

idiots!!
[The point is, if a conventional war breaks out somewhere in the world, if Iraq becomes second page news (aside from the economy, which is Congress's responsibility) we need a military-wise leader. And there is only one in this race.]

Frankly, what we need is a military that isn't stretched to the breaking point because of the "military-wise" leadership of the Republicans.  I guess you must support the draft, huh?
I find it both odd and disturbing that John McCain can think this war is "winnable". How on earth do you even constitute what exactly winning would be? Less deaths?, less fighting?, the Iraqi gov't. actually standing up for themselves?

Get real people. The war is not winnable under any circumstances, regardless of the outcome. You know it and I know it.

http://www.politivine.com
Obama says his foreign policy will be like Reagan, Kennedy, Bush1....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080329/ap_on_el_pr/obama_bush&printer=1;_ylt=AnUtAxtZXIhi4n57eg8O4DRh24cA

Obama is whatever people need him to be.
Want a JFK? check
Want a Reagan? check
Want a Bush1? check

IOW - Obama is trying desperately to position himself as EVERYONE's answer to everything. Typical lingo of a con man.

But everyone hasn't fallen under Obama's spell.



I don't care if I ever ever see Hillary or Obama again.
McCain 08
Troops, Americans are being harmed right now, why aren't we leaving like Mccain said?
Mccain has no exit strategy-for that matter no strategy at all-just "stay the course". When violence is up, we can't leave because of the violence. When violence is down, we can't leave because violence might go up again. Meanwhile we have lost over 4,000 of the finest troops in the world, and it costs the American taxpayers 12 billion dollars a month. And this is supposed to be his strong point. A vote for mccain is a vote for bush/cheney-he is simply NOT presidential!
"For those of you who are just weary of the primary, and feeling kind of ground down or that it's like a Bataan death march, I just want everybody to know that the future is bright." - Obama

Obama mocks American soldiers held by the Japanese during WW2!  Thousands were killed or died of starvation!

Obama and Wright are wrong for America!
Obama's church's website scrubbed....

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/whos-scrubbing.html

Hey - members of the KKK were also fine upstanding Christians and attended church regularly.
But if a white presidential candidate were associated with them - he/she would be long gone!
Um...wait a minute.  Aren't the terrorists already upset cause we have bases in Sudia Arabia and Kuwait?  I'm pretty sure I remember Bin Laden saying something about wanting our bases out of the middle east.  So, perhaps having occupying Iraq for 30, 50 or 100 years isn't the best way to solve our long term goals...whatever those may be.  Then again, I guess it's worked out pretty well for Israel, right?
Senator McCain will be a fine president, he just has to find a new Cheney to run the whole shebang!
The easy win for John in the GE is b/c BO stinks!
jose, ny, ny (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 5:26 PM)

He has a history of "waffling"!!

Paul, Riverside, CA (Sent Monday, March 31, 2008 5:40 PM)

And EITHER is Bill Clinton; yet Obama supporters LIE and rag on him every minute --double standard??

!!
Ask anyone who served in the Air Force during the early 1990s when General McPeak was Air Force Chief of Staff what they think of that him...I don't think you'll get many positive remarks.

General McPeak is often regarded as among the worst Chiefs of Staff in Air Force history.  That Obama doesn't know or understand this and accepts advice from the man...well, that's something I'll consider in November along with having Rev. Wright as a mentor.
Mr. McCain, how can that part of the world be very volatile, and American's saftey not be at risk, for the next hundred years? His 'hundred years' comment is being taken exactly as it should be. In the same breath, he commited to it, then distanced himself a bit, then turned right back to his original theory.

That, "...fine with me...", retort, sounds awfully callous.

This is the RNC's equivalent to Bill's "...what is, is..."?

They're actually going to try and hold  Barack's feet to the fire, over someones else's statement, again! Chairman Dean is'nt an Obama surrogate. I hope Barack will stand by him, and defend what he said, if he agrees with it. He needs to put them on notice, that he won't be put on the defensive.

Pulling for Obama '08
I am beginning to understand my sons contempt for our Political system and our Government. He gently chides me for becoming to emotionally involved in a rigged system. He grows quiet when I try to defend the un-defendable ignorance of most Americans who assume that their Government is always right. He explains slowly to me that regardless of which party is brought to power in November, the occupation of Iraq will continue because 1000 KIA a year and Trillions of dollars is an acceptable price to most Americans who feel that this union is perfect and requires nothing now except blind obedience. He tells me that there is only one political party in the United States. The right and left wing of that party take turns running things.
This may be my last election. I will vote for the nominee of the Democratic party. If by the end of the first year we are still in Iraq then I am done. I will follow my sons advice and withdraw from useless participation in a rigged, fatally flawed fraud.
300 years has been the shelf life of past Republics. All things come to an end.

Obama or Hillary or McCain. One last try.
I don't expect much.
To Jose NY,NY
I am having trouble comprehending your comment. Obama never said the comments that Rev. Wright said. Obama denounced and rejected Wright's statements. Wright is not running for presdient. Obama is. Lets stop misconstruing facts. Second, it is okay to identify McCain's comments on youtube because the 100 year war came from his mouth. It is important to point that out because I don't think anybody wants to be in a war for 100 years. If it comes from the candidates mouth, all is fair in the election. If it didn't come from the candidates mouth, it should not be used aganist the individual. Lets stay with the facts.
Ugh!

The point is that John McCain and, for that matter George Bush, continue to talk about "victory in Iraq" but they have never actually defined what that means.

The goal posts have kept moving and will keep moving without a plan...and how can McCain or Bush have a plan when their goal is some undefined "victory" - How do you get somewhere when you have no idea where you are going??

The press needs to realize that John McCain is running for the Presidency and stop making excuses for his every misstep. That is McCain's job...if he can't stand up to scrutiny, then he shouldn't be President....and by the way - pointing to someone's political flaws in a political campaign - is not negative campaigning.
Tim in Mobile:
SO..........you're saying that the only reason we should elect McCain is nobody does war like a Republican?  Mister, he is flying the flag of the party that got us in this G-dforsaken hole in the first place.  Bush has managed to singlehandly rob the Repubs of ANY chance of winning ANYTHING in 08, Executive, Legislative, Judicial, DogCatcher, you name it.  IF McCain frames his whole candidacy around the IF of some future/maybe/soon/tomorrow war, the American public assuredly is not having it.
Obama is a weakling here,and is out of his league. Oh to be sure,he has brought better guns up on the domestic economic front,but is handily whipped here,having to fall back on a lame critique of McCains original remarks which have been finally placed into context. Oddly enough,no-one actually ever bothers to include a nation where American forces HAD been placed for ''100 years''. The Phillipines,where we remained from 1898 to 1992 with total US withdrawl not peformed until 1998. A century of American military presence,inside of a Pilipino insurgency which cropped up several times over the course of that century,with major US air,naval and Army bases all over the country.[and with US forces still assisting the Pilipino military in its anti-Abu Sayef operations].
Hillary voted with Bush and his cronies.  I never heard a word from her contrary to what Bush and Cheeny recommended.  Please everyone watch Frontlines 'Bushes War', Hillary is a part of that kind of politics.
**100**100**100**100**100**100**100**100**100**100**

quibbble about numbers all you want.  John McCain will say let's stay in Iraq forever (not just 100) if things are going well there.  And if things aren't going well there, then that's an excuse to do another (and another) surge and stay even longer.

By McCain's logic we will NEVER leave Iraq.

By his logic, he thinks Americans are ok with it, as long as no Americans are getting hurt????  

I'M REALLY NOT OK WITH THIS.
The only candidate that has not been fully "vetted" is Obama.  The main reason he touts for being President is that he has "judgment".  We've all seen his judgement - Pastor Hate-monger Wright - Indicted SlumbLord Tony Rezko - top advisors backroom meetings with Canadian officials - "0" oversight hearings on committee he chairs regarding troops in Afghanistan in more than a year's time - the list goes on and on.  The fact is his resume is very thin and what is there lacks any substance.  He tries to take credit for all kinds of legislation passed in Congress, and we're finding out that much of this is lies also.  He clearly lacks integrity, judgment and wisdom. So much for his resume.
As far as comparing Iraq to Germany and Japan...Let's do more comparison.  We had MANY ALLIES to get us to the point of occupation...not that way now!
Well, John Mccain and his fellow war lovers...you see we have this problem with your occupation plans...not enough like minded gals and guys are willing to sign up and go serve a tour or three in the sands of Iraq...34% of you claim to be patriotic republicans so why is it so hard to fill the ranks?
"The only thing that matters is that they are there and they need to come home now. We are pouring $720 million a day down that sandy rat hole and sea of American blood. Enough is Enough, not one more day."

twocanpete

Um twocanpete,

You do realize that the candidate you pledged such an incredible amount of loyalty to, (until he dropped out of course) Mike Huckabee, was going to keep us in Iraq right?  
tax records, earmarks, library donations???

fully vetted, NOT
I'm disappointed. In general I think highly of Obama. But his statement about McCain is a crude mischaracterization.

Watch the clip. McCain made the comment about 100 years in the context of pointing out that we have had military bases in Korea for 60 years.

But it is so much easier to play dirty.

To hear Howard Dean and Nancy Pelosi and Hillary (and now Obama) spin it, you would think it was a McCain official policy white paper ADVOCATING 100 years of combat.

Again-- watch the clip.

It is one thing to take cheap shots. But do you have to take such TRANSPARENTLY SLEAZY cheap shots?












How about Japan and Korea as the comparison.  for many people, that would seem the best case, dream scenario for Iraq.  But, am I the only person that thinks that American troops should not be stationed in Japan, Korea, Germany, Italy etc?  Its not like our presence in those countries is costless.  Sure, troops are not being killed in those places, but it is still an unsustainable tax burden on the American people, with little gain beyond military contractors, defense corporations etc.
What's wrong with 100 years? How about this: Al-Qaeda was motivated to attack the US by our presence in Saudi Arabia for a handful of years. How many terrorists would it breed for us to be in Iraq for 100 years? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? More?
What's wrong with 100 years? How about this: Al-Qaeda was motivated to attack the US by our presence in Saudi Arabia for a handful of years. How many terrorists would it breed for us to be in Iraq for 100 years? Hundreds? Thousands? Tens of thousands? More?
Germany,Japan were defeated and South Korea we have a ceasfire. Iraq the fighting goes on in a civil war type war.
So is McCain going to be the only person to know when we can get out. There is no clear set goal that seams possible. Iraq has at least 3 different factions that don't trust the other. It's a miserable  mess with no good solution other than one that makes our Country broke and Our military less able to defend us because of over extension.
so what's the bigs here, the cubs, hillary's former favorite team has gone 100 years without a world series title. so mccain has 94 more years to go.
Daniel come on! Who are you listening too? Fox News! Please.....We all know that McCain would be the one to answer that call at 3:00a.m...... Because he would be trying to take a piss at 3 in the morning! And we all know that if the election were held today and it was between Obama and McCain. Obama would win!
Didn't he really mean only till he's 100 years old..
What's that, a couple of months?...  He'll have us out of Iraq before anybody..!!!
"And if you start with the "Iran next" crap, then have your constitutional expert Obama explain to you that a President can't go to war without congressional approval."

Nobody told Kennedy that when we went into Viet Nam and look at how easy it was for Bush to get us into Iraq. History has shown time and again that we can get into conflicts without congressional approval, i.e. Somalia, Haiti, and Panama.
Obama is right here. McCain loves this war and Obama doesn;t... he's just trying to back out of an unreasonable position.... any kind of suggestion to stay in Iraq for 100 years is crazy. Granddaddy McSame give it up.

I can't wait for the Fall. Obama is going to tear McSame a part.... no more Bush policies baby! And also, RNC why would Obama denounce anything Dean said... that would be what I would call stupid.  
That's true too Clinton has said this numerous times too. Get a grip McSame... his heart his going to fail before the general anyway.
Anyone thinks that the US could have a base in IRAQ without soldiers being killed regularly, I have some very nice swamp land to sell you.

Iran will be fueling that fire that burns our soldiers every day we are there.


SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=845454

First Read e-mail alerts


Sign up for First Read alerts
The first place for key political news and analysis

Syndicate This Site

Add First Read to your news reader:
live.com xml
myyahoo msn
bloglines newsgator
google